Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256289 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? [...] What does God care what we call him?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brussels Journal.

rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#166364 Mar 8, 2013
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the name of this all important angel!!!
rabbee: it has always, been Meechael. and it won't change no matter how many times, G-D gives this same Story of Creation again.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#166365 Mar 8, 2013
it is hard to believe, that this whole world is sooo incredably stupid. that not even one person, can figure out. figure out what living story, we are all here in. from TheG-D of Forever, of Only and Always TheTorah. as this most simple logical deduction, eludes you all.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#166366 Mar 8, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Says you, or bmz or both? I hardly think of you guys as being expert translators. I will stick with those that have been approved of by the Catholic Church.
Well, for one thing I can understand Hebrew, and you can't

And, BMZ, an Arabic speaker, can follow what I say, since it is very similar

You, on the other hand, can not read Hebrew.

Ironically, there are many learned Christian clergy that CAN understand Hebrew. I know that for a fact because I know at least one Hebrew teacher who teaches at a seminary, and there are multiple books available that are marketed as Hebrew for Christians (usually BY Christians). Plus, there is an entire educational industry in Israel for Christians to this end as well.

AND I WOULD VENTURE THAT 100% OF ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD NOT ONLY AGREE WITH MY EARLIER POST BUT WOULD ALSO CONSIDER YOU A TOTAL FOOL.

sorry - I tell it as it is

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166367 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I just showed a comparison of Psalm 16:10 in the post above. No 'Holy One" in there.:
If God had really begotten Jesus, God would have declared, I have begotten Jesus from Mary" but
there is no statement from Jesus saying, "I am the begotten son of God" or "God begat me".
So, when Jesus did not say that he was the begotten son of God, how could others?
I have already said that God sending Jesus to suffer on the cross for others' sins, is rubbish and absurd. There was no need to do that.
God is loving. Right? Why would God do such a silly and stupid thing?
God can do anything. Right? So a loving God could have simply forgiven everybody's sins, instead of subjecting Jesus to a ridiculous shame.
The sending of Jesus to suffer for no valid reason, shows that your God is neither love nor loving..
There is no need for you play God.
God is real.

A voice from heaven - A voice from God. This was probably heard by all who were present. This voice, or sound, was repeated on the mount of transfiguration, Matthew 17:5; Luke 9:35-36; 2 Peter 1:17. It was also heard just before his death, and was then supposed by many to be thunder, John 12:25-30. It was a public declaration that Jesus was the Messiah.

My beloved Son - This is the title which God himself gave to Jesus. It denotes the nearness of his relation to God, and the love of God for him, Hebrews 1:2. It implies that he was equal with God, Hebrews 1:5-8; John 10:29-33; John 19:7. The term "Son" is expressive of love of the nearness of his relation to God, and of his dignity and equality with God.

I am well pleased - or, I am ever delighted. The language implies that he was constantly or uniformly well pleased with him; and in this solemn and public manner he expressed his approbation of him as the Redeemer of the world.

The baptism of Jesus has usually been regarded as a striking manifestation of the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine that there are three Persons in the divine nature:

(1) there is the Person of "Jesus Christ," the Son of God, baptized in Jordan, elsewhere declared to be equal with God, John 10:30.

(2) the Holy Spirit descending in a bodily form upon the Saviour. The Holy Spirit is also equal with the Father, or is also God, Acts 5:3-4.

(3) the Father, addressing the Son, and declaring that He was well pleased with him.

It is impossible to explain this transaction consistently in any other way than by supposing that there are three equal Persons in the divine nature or essence, and that each of these sustains an important part in the work of redeeming people.

You know the truth that Jesus is the Son of God, but you cannot bring your self to say it because you are a Muslim.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#166368 Mar 8, 2013

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#166369 Mar 8, 2013
Those are all Christian sites.

Not everyone is as lazy and foolish as PaulWV

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166370 Mar 8, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I just showed a comparison of Psalm 16:10 in the post above. No 'Holy One" in there.:
If God had really begotten Jesus, God would have declared, I have begotten Jesus from Mary" but
there is no statement from Jesus saying, "I am the begotten son of God" or "God begat me".
So, when Jesus did not say that he was the begotten son of God, how could others?
I have already said that God sending Jesus to suffer on the cross for others' sins, is rubbish and absurd. There was no need to do that.
God is loving. Right? Why would God do such a silly and stupid thing?
God can do anything. Right? So a loving God could have simply forgiven everybody's sins, instead of subjecting Jesus to a ridiculous shame.
The sending of Jesus to suffer for no valid reason, shows that your God is neither love nor loving..
On what higher consul above God do you base your reason and logic?
No matter what God did and said you disagree with Gods decisions.

Explain who that consul you confide with that you believe is above God?
Eric

La Grange Park, IL

#166371 Mar 8, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Says you, or bmz or both? I hardly think of you guys as being expert translators. I will stick with those that have been approved of by the Catholic Church.
Oh, really?

For you will not abandon me to Sheol, nor let your faithful servant see the pit.

http://bible.catholic.net/home.php...

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166372 Mar 8, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, for one thing I can understand Hebrew, and you can't
And, BMZ, an Arabic speaker, can follow what I say, since it is very similar
You, on the other hand, can not read Hebrew.
Ironically, there are many learned Christian clergy that CAN understand Hebrew. I know that for a fact because I know at least one Hebrew teacher who teaches at a seminary, and there are multiple books available that are marketed as Hebrew for Christians (usually BY Christians). Plus, there is an entire educational industry in Israel for Christians to this end as well.
AND I WOULD VENTURE THAT 100% OF ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD NOT ONLY AGREE WITH MY EARLIER POST BUT WOULD ALSO CONSIDER YOU A TOTAL FOOL.
sorry - I tell it as it is
You need to get a new translator.

It may be added that this interpretation accords with the connection in which the word occurs. Though it may be admitted that the connection would not "necessarily" lead to this view, yet this interpretation is in entire harmony with the statements in the previous verses, and in the following verse. Thus, in the previous verse, the psalmist had said that "his flesh would rest in hope," - a sentiment which accords with either the idea that he would at some future period be raised from the grave, and would not perish forever, though the period of the resurrection might be remote; or with the idea of being raised up so soon that the body would not return to corruption, that is, before the change consequent on death would take place. The sentiment in the following verse also agrees with this view. That sentiment is, that there is a path to life; that in the presence of God there is fulness of joy; that at his right hand there are pleasures forevermore - a sentiment, in this connection, founded on the belief of the resurrection from the dead, and equally true whether the dead should be raised immediately or at some remote period. I infer, therefore, that the apostles Peter and Paul made a legitimate use of this passage; that the argument which they urged was derived from a proper interpretation of the language; that the fair construction of the psalm, and the fact that David "had" returned to corruption, fully justified them in the application which they made of the passage; and that, therefore, it was the design of the Holy Spirit to convey the idea that "the Messiah" would be raised from the dead without undergoing the change which others undergo in the grave; and that it was thus "predicted" in the Old Testament, that be would be raised from the dead in the manner in which he was.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166373 Mar 8, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
Those are all Christian sites.
Not everyone is as lazy and foolish as PaulWV
It is not lazy.
It is intelligence to stick to the truth.
And Paul sticks to the truth.
Ignoring truth is ignorance.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166374 Mar 8, 2013
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, really?
For you will not abandon me to Sheol, nor let your faithful servant see the pit.
http://bible.catholic.net/home.php...
Here we go again.
Your link didn't work.
I am prepared to give you a lesson in translating Psalm 16:10.
Its about 5 pages long.
Do you want me to begin?
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#166375 Mar 8, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, for one thing I can understand Hebrew, and you can't
And, BMZ, an Arabic speaker, can follow what I say, since it is very similar
You, on the other hand, can not read Hebrew.
Ironically, there are many learned Christian clergy that CAN understand Hebrew. I know that for a fact because I know at least one Hebrew teacher who teaches at a seminary, and there are multiple books available that are marketed as Hebrew for Christians (usually BY Christians). Plus, there is an entire educational industry in Israel for Christians to this end as well.
AND I WOULD VENTURE THAT 100% OF ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD NOT ONLY AGREE WITH MY EARLIER POST BUT WOULD ALSO CONSIDER YOU A TOTAL FOOL.
sorry - I tell it as it is
What matters is that the message meant by the original writer is conveyed and not your twist on it. In Acts 2 and 13 we learn how the first Christians understood the passage and that is enough for me, for they knew those who talked to Jesus on the road to Emmaus and when He opened to them the Scriptures and how they talked of Him.
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#166376 Mar 8, 2013
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, really?
For you will not abandon me to Sheol, nor let your faithful servant see the pit.
http://bible.catholic.net/home.php...
As I said before it does not matter how you want to translate the passage it is how the early Christians understood it; and they understood it as a prophecy of Jesus and His resurrection.
Eric

La Grange Park, IL

#166377 Mar 8, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Here we go again.
Your link didn't work.
I am prepared to give you a lesson in translating Psalm 16:10.
Its about 5 pages long.
Do you want me to begin?
Funny, it works for me.

But it doesn't matter. Paul says he only goes by the Roman Catholic Church approved translation. The translation I gave was the one approved by the US Conference of Bishops. Therefore, it meets the requirements set forth by Paul.

Here is the home page for the Bible cited. I am sure you can navigate to Psalm 16

http://bible.catholic.net
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#166378 Mar 8, 2013
BMZ (SINGAPORE) is a crypto-Jew. Alex is the same.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#166379 Mar 8, 2013
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, it works for me.
But it doesn't matter. Paul says he only goes by the Roman Catholic Church approved translation. The translation I gave was the one approved by the US Conference of Bishops. Therefore, it meets the requirements set forth by Paul.
Here is the home page for the Bible cited. I am sure you can navigate to Psalm 16
http://bible.catholic.net
Its a good site.
I will save it.
Shalom
Shamma
Paul WV

Beckley, WV

#166380 Mar 8, 2013
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, it works for me.
But it doesn't matter. Paul says he only goes by the Roman Catholic Church approved translation. The translation I gave was the one approved by the US Conference of Bishops. Therefore, it meets the requirements set forth by Paul.
Here is the home page for the Bible cited. I am sure you can navigate to Psalm 16
http://bible.catholic.net
What it shows is that Jesus and His followers used the Greek Septuagint.
Mooshla Urduhl Wobiya

Napa, CA

#166381 Mar 8, 2013
In the Book, whose name we shall not utter, He, whose true name no one now knows, it is rumored to be said that we should all go forth in a great crowd and speak the three sounds and make the ancient genuflection as one wave and then we should separate and disperse and go from that place and not thereafter refer or reflect thereupon ever again as that is the way and the knowing of that which shall prove fleeting and impermanent but of which some sense of moment of import shall forever remain though unknown in the vastness and truth of its meaning, as but a thread in the fabric of our forever thereafter empty days.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#166382 Mar 8, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is meaningless, since in Acts 2 and 13 the Christian community saw that it referred to Jesus and His resurrection. How did they come to know this? On the road to Emmaus Jesus opened the Scriptures to His disciples and explained how they refer to Him from the beginning.
For three years, the disciples could not understand a thing of what Jesus spoke. How much could Jesus teach and how much could they have learned within a short walk on the track?

In Acts 2, Peter lies boldly by saying, "32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it."

He and other disciples were not witnesses to the alleged resurrection.

And here I am opening your mind on the broadband, to show the deliberately twisted and distorted translations in the OT.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#166383 Mar 8, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't go by what the Gospel say but only what an uneducated 7th century war lord said. Jesus died on the cross, laid three days in the tomb and on the third day an angel rolled back the stone to the tomb and Jesus' resurrection was witnessed by the Roman guards.
Muhammad did not speak very much about Jesus and his life. He just recited out what was revealed to him from The LORD Almighty.

Jesus goes into the tomb on Friday eve. That is 24 hours on Saturday eve. Left early morning on Sunday, say 12 hours.

Total time in: 24 + 12 = 36 hours

NOBODY saw Jesus getting up! Your scripture agrees with me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Islam Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
HELP! Europe is awash with muslims. (Jun '13) 1 hr BB Board 27
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 1 hr Faith 520,983
Converting 1 hr BB Board 3
Islamic Abrogation, Taqiyya and Kitman (Jun '08) 2 hr BB Board 9
News Weakened Merkel wins fourth term, hit by nation... 2 hr BB Board 1
Church Shooting in Tennessee 2 hr BB Board 1
ISLAM is coming no matter what HATERS DO!!!! 2 hr Ampman 25
More from around the web